Proving God by proving the Bible

[RBD]

Since the God of the Bible says He cannot be proven nor found apart from His words, such as by physical sight, signs, philosophy, science, etc... then it is not possible to given any proof of the true God in heaven, apart from His words. Indeed, He says such seeking of proof is unbeliefe, vain, and decietful.

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Luk 16:31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Therefore, the only way to prove God is, and He is the God of the Bible, is to prove the Bible is true in all things. So, without sounding 'preachy' by only using God's words to prove Himself, then we can prove the Bible must be His proof by proving there is no contradiction between any of His words.

Proof that there is a God in heaven, and He is the Lord God of the Bible, is by the inerrancy of His words written by so many men, so many generations apart.

I propose to prove the God of the Bible is true, but proving there is no contradiction of His words of doctrine, and prophecy. If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written: The Creator of heaven and earth, and all creatures in heaven and on earth, is the Lord God of the Bible.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #208]

"Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives"
(Matthew 19:8)

Strong’s Definitions
ὑμῶν humōn, hoo-mone'; genitive case of G5210; of (from or concerning) you:—ye, you, your (own, -selves)

Same word.

Ok. You're not suggesting Jesus was in error, because they themselves were not there in the wildernerss, when Moses wrote the law, right? As though the law did not apply to themselves?

What a straw you're grasping at. You pointed the finger at the divorced wives and I showed you text exonerating them.

Applying the great commandment to the permit for divorce does include fornication

Applying the great commandment to the permit for divorce does not limit it to fornication.


Fornication isn't the only disobedience to the law.

True, but fornication is cause for divorce.

....but not the only cause, according to the law.

You've bypassed the point that their hardness of heart included not executing the law properly.

That's the accusation Jesus makes, but they point out that they have the law on their side.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #205]

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Luk 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Mar 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.


No contradiction. Since Jesus acknowledges the cause of fornication in one place for divorce, then it must be understood in every place He teaches on divorce.

Since his two answers play both sides of the fence on the hot-topic divorce issue, what you assert is exactly what can't be assumed.

A contradiction with Himself, as well as with the law of Moses, would be Jesus saying divorce is not permitted for any cause at all.

That's exactly what he says in Mark and Luke (the author of Luke claims in 1:3 to have "researched everything carefully", so he certainly should have gotten it right).

This is true. Therefore, no self-respecting honest Jew would ask such an obviously ignorant question about the law

In other words, you assume that the Jews were being dishonest.


The word "erva" (עֶרְוַת), the word in Deut. 24:1, is the same word which appears in Deut. 23:14 referring to a soldier's use of an army camp latrine, which clearly has no sexual connection.

Which clearly has no divorce connection

....and shows that uncleanness (עֶרְוַת) is broader than fornication (וַיֶּזֶן).

That's the problem with arguing law and doctrine by word definition alone, rather than serious context.

The problem is with trying to change the definition of a word to put it into a desired context.

Niowhere, does the law of Moses forbid keeping company with Gentiles, but only not making marriages between them. This is why Jesus and the apostles speak of the corrupt Jew's law and religion, rather than the righteous law and covenant of the God of Isreal by Moses.

The "righteous law and covenant of the God of Israel by Moses" is exactly what Jesus touts in Matthew 5:18:

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

.....committing himself to exactly what the Pharisees declare:

They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
(Mark 10:4)

.....before taking issue with the righteous law as if it weren't righteous:

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law"
(Mark 10:5)

[Difflugia]

All three statements are equally absurd.

No, only the first two are absurd.

Are you familiar with Poe's Law? It's sure familiar with you.

But the middle does not specify the number of people involved in the event. Doing so for oneself is the middle voice, but doing so for oneself by oneself alone, is extending the middle beyond it's conjugal reach. The middle voice is only used to identify an actor, not to the exclusion of any other actor.

This is all fine, but the story in Matthew doesn't include Judas as an actor. That's the contradiction. In Matthew, a remorseful Judas discarded the reward and ran away to commit suicide. The priests didn't know what to do with the money, so had a conference at which they decided to buy a field with it. At most, Judas forced the priests to decide to buy a field.

In Acts, an unrepentant Judas bought a field with his reward, then died in it.

Otherwise, the middle voice could never be used to show a person buys land for himself through intermediaries.

The apologetic claim isn't about intermediaries, but that the priests bought the field on Judas' behalf. The fact that you have to expand the agency of Judas beyond what's written shows that you clearly understand the problem.

Which is of course Judas' money being used by the priests to purchase the field.

Of course. Then you should be able to find another similarly broad use of κτάομαι in the middle voice. Considering that some linguists consider κτάομαι to be a deponent verb, that should actually make your job easier. If Greek readers would understand it the way you do, we should expect authors to have used it that way.

Any conclusion from the record merely by middle voice, that Judas had to buy the field for himself, and by himself alone without any other possible intermediary, is an obvious abuse of grammar.

And considering that you have to create a straw man of my argument is an obvious abuse of logic. The argument isn't merely grammatical or exclude any possible intermediary, but is that the description in Matthew of the priests buying a field with money discarded by Judas is incompatible with the story in Acts of Judas buying some property for himself.

They are not the same account of the same story. There is no literary rule, that an Author cannot give different accurate accounts of the same event. It's called a separation of narrative accounts. No author has to include every detail of an event, in order not to contradict himself by adding more detail elsewhere. Contradiction is only if the details conflict.

Matthew's Judas character died by suicidal hanging. The Judas character of Acts died when his guts exploded in a presumed act of divine retribution. If those characters are meant to be the same person, they contradict.

There is no conflict whatsoever between Judas buying a field for himself, and the priests purchasing it with his money.

Is that sarcasm? It's hard to tell with you guys.

A contradiction would be Judas by a field for himself alone, without any others involved in the transaction. (Which the middle voice has no say) Or, that the priests purchased it with their own money, or from the temple treasury.

Or that the priests bought the field with neither Judas' agency nor in some way entering Judas' possession afterward. Matthew 27:3-8 is almost tailor-made to exactly contradict Acts 1:18.

This raises what I find to be one of the interesting questions of inerrancy. Is inerrancy a propositional claim or a dogmatic one? Are you using obvious inerrancy as evidence that the text is special, or are you declaring that the Bible is inerrant even when it's obviously not? It can't be both.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #194]

So long as the difference between the natural and spiritual are not discerned, then the Bible can only be understood in part, because the Spirit is hidden from the carnal mind.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee...."
(Deuteronomy 30:11)

Deu 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

The natural man doesn't believe in spiritual things such as hidden men of the heart. They only believe what they can see, touch, and feel, just like any other brute beast on earth.

Nor do they believe in anything eternal, such as the LORD and His word.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #196]

It's not a matter of intelligent reasoning alone, but also of personal desire.

Personal desire mustn't be allowed to replace intelligent reasoning. Remember what Galileo said:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Which is why inerrancy proves anyone declaring the Bible cannot possibly be believed, is replacing intelligent reading with personal desire alone. Which is also why such singular focus trying to find errancy, results only in surface reading to find it. And forbids any study showing any reasonable alternative.

All intelligence must be accompanied with personal desire, in order to belive it and act accordingly.

[RBD]

Judas entered an agreement to buy a field.

Which Gospel says that?

Since the record says he did buy a field for himself, the priests purchased that field with his money, and he knew of it in order to hang himself therein, then it's entirely possible he also agreed with it. At least enough to hang himself therein.

The Pharisees confirmed Judas's decision by taking the money Judas was supposed to have given for the field (but threw back into the temple) and consummated the sale agreement by declaring the property a field in which to bury the unwanted

So, we're to read Matthew in a way that assumes details that aren't present in any New Testament text, but that make sense in light of Acts if we pretend that Greek grammar is different than it actually is?

Only if we read the Greek grammar as it actually is, and not find a way to make the Greek middle voice say something, that the middle voice cannot say alonme. I.e. that Judas had to buy the field for himself, and by Himself alone, without any possible intermediary. The First part is middle passive translation. The last part is an obvious abuse of Greek grammar, that is intended only to write new narrative in the Book.

And it doesn't need to be pointed out anymore, especially since no one has responded to show the conclusion is not correct.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #214]

Deu 30:14 "But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."

The natural man doesn't believe in spiritual things such as hidden men of the heart. They only believe what they can see, touch, and feel, just like any other brute beast on earth.

Nor do they believe in anything eternal, such as the LORD and His word.

But the word is very nigh unto thee,

in thy mouth, and in thy heart,

that thou mayest do it.

The law of Moses itself states that the word is in the heart so that it can be done.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #202]

Ironically enough, I just updated this thread --> viewtopic.php?t=40622&start=280
..... Which demonstrates severe lack in Christian involvement.

The Bible claims an Exodus took place. Many state it was not an actual event. Since the Bible makes a positive claim, in that an 'Exodus" took place, do we have positive evidence to support the claim?

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence?

It demonstrates a servere lack of evidence involved at all.

Once again, a negative does not prove a positive.

Outside the Bible, there is no proof of the burning bush, the plagues of Egypt, the exodus of the children of Israel, nor 40 years travelling in the desert wilderness. The burning bush is not burning, the plagues have gone away, the Nile flows without blood, the Red Sea flows without break, and the desert has the bones of their dead caracses left in the wilderness. (And the rock gushing water isn't gushing)

And also, just because the Egyptian record does not include such a disastrous event of Egyptian folly, that was made by it's own pharoah and people, does not prove it didn't happen. Afterall, what proud people want to write that down in stone?

Also, there is no earthly proof that the heaven and hell of the Bible exists, since the one above is unseen, and the one beneath is in the heart of the earth.

As Cpt Kirk would say, Where no man has physcally gone before...

Care to share why you believe 'the Exodus' happened? [/quote]

Because the Bible says so, of course. And by it's own errancy, it needs no outside corroboration.

Once again, it's not about proving all of the Bible is true, since anyone can disbelieve the truth. It's all about proving it can be true by proper study of the Book, and the reasonable conclusion that it does not err.

The gauntlet is thrown down to anyone declaring by their own unbelief alone, that it can't all be believed. That's not an sound literary argument.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #215]

Which is why inerrancy proves anyone declaring the Bible cannot possibly be believed, is replacing intelligent reading with personal desire alone.

The presumption of inerrancy proves nothing except that the one arguing wants to start at a desired conclusion and work backwards.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #202]

The fact that there is no error between one book and the rest of the Bible, proves the book is Bible.

Weren't we discussing Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 a few posts back? An error between one book and itself in the Bible counts, doesn't it?

Someone was arguing for a contradiction based upon abuse of grammar. A reader's error does not make and author's error.